Usage Score
31.5
Player Dossier
2011-2015Tulsa
Keyarris Garrett
WR • 6'4" • Daingerfield, TX, USA
Alpha targetExplosive finisher
Keyarris Garrett reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Efficiency
84.5
Consistency
59.1
Season Value
68.8
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2015 Postseason · Tulsa
11121213141515
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 1
- Seasons Tracked
- 7
- Program Path
- Tulsa
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: Memphis
Scouting Read
Best season and peak-game context are pinned here so the rest of the page can stay analytical without losing the headline story.
Keyarris Garrett, WR. Best season Best season by value score: 2015 Postseason · Tulsa. Keyarris Garrett reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2015 Postseason
Tulsa paired 1,588 primary output with 84.5 efficiency.
Supporting note
2015 Postseason role shape
target-driven usage with 84.5 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value stayed steady
2015 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: Memphis
Loss with an explosive receiving profile. It landed in the 100th percentile of the selected season.
Analysis workspace
Season Workbench
Filter the strongest season sample, inspect game-level shape, and then drop into the full log without losing the story of the year.
Season Explorer
Understand the selected season before dropping into the full game log.
2015 Postseason · Tulsa
Games
13
Receiving Yards / G
122.2
Efficiency
84.5
Usage
31.5
Consistency
59.1
Best Game by takeover score
Virginia Tech
Hover a point or expand a game row to keep the active game context visible here.
Game-by-Game Trend
12345678910111213
Chronological game order.
Game by game trend chart. Virginia Tech: 137. Florida Atlantic: 163. New Mexico: 102. Oklahoma: 189. Houston: 85. UL Monroe: 89. East Carolina: 70. Memphis: 268. SMU: 26. UCF: 4. Cincinnati: 168. Navy: 71. Tulane: 216
Volume vs Efficiency
Low volume / high quality
High volume / high quality
Low volume / lower quality
High volume / lower quality
Volume on the x-axis, quality on the y-axis.
Volume versus efficiency scatter chart. Virginia Tech: 8 by 100. Florida Atlantic: 5 by 100. New Mexico: 7 by 97.1. Oklahoma: 14 by 90. Houston: 7 by 81. UL Monroe: 8 by 74.2. East Carolina: 4 by 100. Memphis: 14 by 100. SMU: 4 by 43.3. UCF: 2 by 13.3. Cincinnati: 9 by 100. Navy: 4 by 100. Tulane: 10 by 100
Split Comparison
Wins100 · n=6 · -41.1 vs Losses
Losses141.1 · n=7 · +41.1 vs Wins
First Half119.3 · n=7 · -6.2 vs Second Half
Second Half125.5 · n=6 · +6.2 vs First Half
Game Log
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
13 games
Featured metric
Receiving Yards
Top game by takeover score
Memphis
Best efficiency game
100 vs Virginia Tech
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 12/26 | @ Virginia Tech100 receiving yards · High volume | L 52-55 | — | 8 | 137 | 17.1 | 17.10 | 1 | 36 |
| Sat 11/28 | @ Tulane100 receiving yards · High volume | W 45-34 | — | 10 | 216 | 21.6 | 21.60 | 1 | 37 |
| Sun 11/22 | vs Navy | L 21-44 | — | 4 | 71 | 17.8 | 17.80 | 0 | 22 |
| Sun 11/15 | @ Cincinnati100 receiving yards · High volume | L 38-49 | — | 9 | 168 | 18.7 | 18.70 | 1 | 46 |
| Sat 11/7 | vs UCF | W 45-30 | — | 2 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 4 |
| Sat 10/31 | @ SMU | W 40-31 | — | 4 | 26 | 6.5 | 6.50 | 0 | 10 |
| Sat 10/24 | vs Memphis100 receiving yards · High volume | L 42-66 | — | 14 | 268 | 19.1 | 19.10 | 3 | 46 |
| Sat 10/17 | @ East Carolina | L 17-30 | — | 4 | 70 | 17.5 | 17.50 | 1 | 47 |
| Sat 10/10 | vs UL MonroeHigh volume | W 34-24 | — | 8 | 89 | 11.1 | 11.10 | 0 | 30 |
| Sat 10/3 | vs Houston | L 24-38 | — | 7 | 85 | 12.1 | 12.10 | 0 | 28 |
| Sat 9/19 | @ Oklahoma100 receiving yards · High volume | L 38-52 | — | 14 | 189 | 13.5 | 13.50 | 1 | 43 |
| Sun 9/13 | @ New Mexico100 receiving yards | W 40-21 | — | 7 | 102 | 14.6 | 14.60 | 0 | 27 |
| Sat 9/5 | vs Florida Atlantic100 receiving yards | W 47-44 | — | 5 | 163 | 32.6 | 32.60 | 0 | 50 |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
Tulsa
2011-2015
Opening stop
Season Progression
2011201220122013201420152015
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 Regular Season | Tulsa | 10 | 33.4 | 5.1 | — |
| 2012 Postseason | Tulsa | 845 | 71.6 | 27.3 | 835 |
| 2012 Regular Season | Tulsa | 845 | 71.6 | 27.3 | 0 |
| 2013 Regular Season | Tulsa | 68 | 59.4 | 17.3 | -777 |
| 2014 Regular Season | Tulsa | 698 | 87.8 | 22.7 | 630 |
| 2015 Postseason | Tulsa | 1,588 | 84.5 | 31.5 | 890 |
| 2015 Regular Season | Tulsa | 1,588 | 84.5 | 31.5 | 0 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
Memphis
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
268
Primary metric
268 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#2
UCF
130
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
130 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#3
Tulane
216
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
216 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#4
Texas State
117
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
117 receiving yards with a 97.5 efficiency score.
#5
Rice
118
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
118 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2015 Postseason · Tulsa
1,588 primary output · 84.5 efficiency · 31.5 usage
68.8
#2
2015 Regular Season · Tulsa
68.8
1,588 primary · 84.5 efficiency · 31.5 usage
#3
2014 Regular Season · Tulsa
57.1
698 primary · 87.8 efficiency · 22.7 usage
Milestones
10
100+ receiving yards
9
8+ catch outings
3
2+ TD games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
3★
Class 2021 · Rating 0.8628
Wagener-Salley · Wagener, SC
- Committed To
- —
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2021
Career Facts
1
Career teams
7
Seasons tracked
3,209
Career Receiving Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 7 tracked seasons, 41 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.